Punching on the fly?


Rednroll wrote on 12/26/2003, 9:42 PM
"You ARE A COMPLETE IDIOT!!! Your reference which you probably cut & paste from a document search on the internet is referring to a console --- NOT A TAPE MACHINE!"

Yep, just what i thought. Wiggle and squirm out of your published ignorance. Why don't you go back and read your own document with the big diagram with the faders on it and tell me again what an idiot I am because I'm referring to a console.......or I'm sorry, do you have a "TAPE MACHINE" with faders on it and effect sends? Yes, I know Auto-input has to do with the tape machine. I'm actually surprised that you even know that with your vast knowledge you've shown. You're really showing how much of an "industry professional" you are with the name calling. That's what most people who have no knowledge behind their debate have to resort to childish name calling. Come on you can do better than that can't you? Show us how creative you really are and resort to some mom jokes next.

Tell Bob I said Hi. I'm the one who worked with him on editing Bawitaba for an extreme sports compilation CD just prior to Devil without a Cause going Platinum. Also tell him, I'm the guy who mastered Paradigms "Paragraphs" CD, who's signed under his Top Dog Records label. Better yet, why don't you tell me your name again and I'll ask him if he knows who the f**k you are the next time he's hanging at the Emerald in Mt. Clemens, MI. Also tell him, I recorded one of his favorite songs from "Danny K", he'll get a kick out of that. A little inside humor, you won't know anything about, but he will.
Nat wrote on 12/26/2003, 10:15 PM
So many imature people here, please don't tell me your age, it would be a shame.
SHTUNOT wrote on 12/26/2003, 10:56 PM
We all want the audio side of vegas to improve. But calling each other names will get us nowhere. Acid users got rewire early because of the many repetitive posts about it that educated other users in demanding it as well. Instead of just disappearing for a while and crying out about "autoinput" or [whathaveyou] keep yourself vocal about the benefits to other users here and have them right in to the "what you need" list. Obviously since "autoinput" was rarely brought up was because the users that voted didn't realize its benefits over their ideas. Keeping them educated will be the only sure bet that the feature will be added.

tmrpro wrote on 12/27/2003, 10:54 AM
Whatever SHTUNOT.... this forum is a complete waste of time.

& here's why... You commented about how I should try to educate people after I did precisely that.


RE: Punching... farss ..here's the scenario... - 12/26/2003 10:09:28 AM

Also, you said that there hasn't been enough discussion about auto input .... Well I just brought the discussion back up... So take a look at "Real Auto Input"...

From an informational standpoint, anytime I've come here seeking answers, there haven't been any. Whenever I've come with answers providing assistance, I have to contend with a guy who makes a living as a high school teacher from Canton, MI trying to tell me how stupid I am and that I'm not a professional.
tmrpro wrote on 12/27/2003, 11:14 AM
******Yep, just what i thought. Wiggle and squirm out of your published ignorance. Why don't you go back and read your own document with the big diagram with the faders on it and tell me again what an idiot I am because I'm referring to a console.......or I'm sorry, do you have a "TAPE MACHINE" with faders on it and effect sends?******

RednRoll@momjokes.com, you really put your foot in your mouth over & over again and the funniest thing is that anyone who knows anything about recording and tape machines can see the TWO GIGANTIC reels on a 4 track recorder in my diagram and can figure out that I'm referring to a Split Console configuration.... But that probably goes way over the head of a high school teacher.

Hey, Don't feel bad Red, I understand that you don't have to pass an IQ test to become a high school teacher.

Just wondering about this record that you mastered..... Where is it available? What label is it on? ....Hmmmmm strange how it can't be found anywhere to verify your connection to it.

You claim to be an authority, but the only thing that can be found out about you is that your a high school teacher....

Do you teach your kids how to BS people too?
PipelineAudio wrote on 12/27/2003, 2:05 PM
"Obviously since "autoinput" was rarely brought up "


the first three years of vegas had me screaming for auto input over and over

right this instant I am overdubbing guitars and wishing like hell I had it. Not having auto input freaks the musicians out, and if people cant understand that one, they need to go intern at a studio for a bit
farss wrote on 12/27/2003, 3:39 PM
thanks for taking the time to explain it all, kind of what I thought these forums were for. I hadn't really considered the workflow issue the way you described it. From what you're saying I assume what you're talking about is having the punch-in appear as a 'take' on the track, not actually recording over the top of what was there with the latest take appearing on the top?

I mostly inhabit the Video forum although the main reason I bought VV was for its audio capabilities. One thing that really concerns me is that between here and the video forum if half the things on the wish lists were ever to happen what would the product look like, how easy would it be to use and what would it cost. I gather from what others are saying there are applications that already do what's needed. Does it make any sense to have a video NLE trying to compete with them as well? Do those that buy VV for cutting video need this capability, should they even be trying to do that as well as having the skill set to edit video?

MJhig wrote on 12/27/2003, 5:27 PM
Mmmm, farss, Vegas started life as an audio multi-track recording app. and with each version audio and video support grew. Version 3 was loaded with video features, based on audio track format which makes Vegas so intuitive for video. Vegas hasn't been "VV" since version 3, it's now just Vegas.

farss wrote on 12/27/2003, 6:02 PM
thanks for the history lesson!
I agree about the ease of use because of the way it grew up. Maybe it needs to be two products lest it develops some sort of bipolar disorder. Given who the new owners are I suspect the video side is going to be where the main focus of development will be.
SHTUNOT wrote on 12/27/2003, 11:51 PM
---Whatever SHTUNOT.... this forum is a complete waste of time---

No its not.

Like I said earlier acid users kept at it over MONTHS. New users just coming in to see whats up readup on the idea of rewiring acid to reason and it just took off like that. I completely agree with your idea but if the majority wants that stupid vst-dx wrapper then.....................[that was a joke peter]

Keep bumping your "autoinput thread" if it makes you feel better. Talk about it to others and make them email sony over and over and over...and good luck on your feature.


btw...pipe I know you brought it up a bit but in terms of the audio r&d compared to the video r&d of past versions of vegas I say we got lucky for what was finished and added. Remember the audio sides upgrade for VV3???? [Or was there even one.............hmmmmm............that was another joke peter]
tmrpro wrote on 12/28/2003, 7:17 AM
*****...and good luck on your feature. *****

Do you live with RednRoll or something? Were you born on another audio engineering planet?


*****Keep bumping your "autoinput thread" if it makes you feel better. Talk about it to others and make them email sony over and over and over*****

Playing internet games is precisely the reason you haven't seen me on this forum for months & it is making me so sick that I could puke, leave again and never come back.

I make records for a living with applications and products that do what they are supposed to do by design. Vegas falls short by design because it does not allow users to use it the way a multi-track recorder should be used from a monitoring standpoint and from a punchin standpoint.<<<<<<~~~~~~~ punctuation again!

For this reason, Vegas only lives in my arsenal for mixing.

I don't need Vegas. I would like to see it have the basic functionality that every mulit-track application must have. Why? Because I use my reputation to endorse the product and when the program falls short... you get the rest of the picture.

And to answer your subject header; "Obviously nobody".
SonyEPM wrote on 12/28/2003, 9:46 AM
"The thread about what Vegas needs is a complete waste of time and is overwhelming the Sony developers with a pile of crap "

??? Why is a thread filled with legit requests, from many diverse users, working on real projects, a complete waste of time? Thanks for pointing out what you need- but please don't dismiss everybody else's wishlists.
Rednroll wrote on 12/28/2003, 10:01 AM
Pipeline said:
"Instead of taking advice from people whio make albums for a living, they have opted to listen to film makers and car stereo installers. Go back into the forums a bit, you can see me getting flamed and blasted for just asking for a few BASIC things, that non engineers cannot comprehend."

Hey Pipeline, here I am Mr. Car Stereo Installer. I believe I've had this discussion with you before on these forums. The Sony developers do not implement features because I ask them too. They listen to their user base and to people who give them insight as to "Why" a feature is needed and "How" they are currently limited by the current functionality of Vegas. I have had discussions enforcing the need for auto input with Sony developers explaining the current limitations and why it's needed. Will it get implemented? I don't know. I did this same type of thing for Sound Forge asking for a VU meter and explaining why it's needed and how I'm limited without one. I started this recommendation in v4.5 of Sound Forge, it's finally made it into Sound Forge v7.0 because other users have finally expressed the need for it also. So are they really listening to me? Maybe, but not until others have the same desire, thus making it worth their while to develope it. There's other features I've recommended and they have been noted. Will they get implemented? I have no idea. A few of them, I bet won't because other users are not demanding it. Maybe I'll see it in v9.0 of Sound Forge. Here's an email I sent to the product suggestion box and had a discussion with one of the Sony developers on "auto-input". Tell me if this is not what you're looking for. Also, tell me if you have done the same type of thing of explaining your request and further explaining why you're limited with the current functionality. Coming in the forums and venting your frustrations will not get you as far as putting a suggestion in the product suggestion box. The product suggestions is where a lot of the developers look at the suggestions, and they may not even come to these forums. It's definately a better way for your voice to be heard, because it's reaching it's direct audience.

"Auto input monitoring, it seems there are a lot of users looking for this type of thing. I think the problem is that everyone is familiar with the tape style of auto-input and have gotten use to working that way, and unfortunately old habits are hard to break once you become effecient at doing it this way. I've broken myself of that type of work flow method, but others aren't so open minded, especially since there is ASIO and other software apps offer this functionality (ie Protools, Nuendo, and I believe Sonar also.)"

"The problem I think for some users is having to know exactly where you want to punch-in before you actually do the punch in. Some people like to do the punches by "feel"....meaning you are playing back listening to the previous performance and getting a feel for the rhythm of a persons breaths. You listen for a quick deep breath for a vocal part, and quickly punch in. You can do this ahead of time by finding that breath, put that takes longer time then just hitting record during playback. The other reason for doing it this way, is that you can look at the vocalist during the playback process through the control room window and get a feel of where they are comfortable. When you see they are comfortable, again it's time to listen for that breath, and hit the record button. So this is something that really can't be defined by selecting the punchin point ahead of time. Since you are unable to do this alot of people say it is counter productive to the "flow" of the session."

"Along those lines, the thing I see where Vegas does this wrong, is if you're playing something back, and during this playback the musician starts to do something that you want to record. With the current method of Vegas, if I'm playing something back, and then hit record it will jump back to where I first started the playback. Well this totally interupts the musician and the performance you where trying to capture. This happens alot, where during playback the musician starts experimenting around, and you have a producer in the room, and the producer says, "Right There!!! That's what I'm looking for." Well, sometimes you can pick up on that vibe that there was something good going on there and put the tape into record....and you just look at the producer and say, "I got it, let's put it in there and see how it sounds." Alot of the final takes that get used is when the talent is just fooling around experimenting with a few things."

"So I do agree in some aspects that there is a use for this. The way this needs to happen for a track that you have armed for record is that there should be an "auto-input" switch. You need to be able to hear the original take during playback, and during playback, if you hit record it starts to record from that point. At this point it mutes that record enabled playback track, and enables the input monitoring/or what is being recorded(ie tape monitoring), then when you hit play, it goes back to playing the original take.Then when you hit Stop, again it enables the input monitoring. This is what they're looking for, now how to make that happen without latency and 16 seperate tracks doing the same thing that's the part you're going to have to figure out. The one thing that can be done away with for latency issues, is the effects being processed during input monitoring on an "auto-input" enabled track. If you really need to have some kind of effect on the input monitoring like reverb for the musicians headphones, then I think you could enable another track for record and have auto input disabled. Thus, one tracks recording with less latency issues, and the other track is recording, but is strictly being used for monitoring purposes. That's just an idea work around, maybe there's a better way to do it."

So please, tell me this is not the type of thing you're looking for and Tmr(name caller)pro. That was a direct quote/discussion I've had from submitting a feature request to the products suggestion located on this website.

Further more if you want to jump on the name calling band wagon with TMrpro then get your facts straight. I do not install radios. I DESIGN audio system hardware/software and transducers. These include hardware devices that use DSP and Microcontrolers. I'm developing DSP hardware, that no other company in the world currently has the know how or technology to do in an automotive application. I've developed 12 channel surround decoding amplifiers with seperate EQ's, compressors, and delay on every channel with multiple analog and digital inputs. It's more powerful than a digital mixer all in a box which is 5"x10"x1.5". A little more complicated than installing radios for a living. To do this type of work, it requires an "Engineering" degree. So if you want to point that finger and call someone a "non engineer", you better turn that finger right back around and start pointing. Prior to doing this type of work, I have 7 years experience working in music recording studios and 4 years in radio/tv production studios. I ran my own business for 2 years recording and mastering music on top of that experience. I decided I didn't like the direction of that business because I didn't enjoy working with every Joe off the street like you're always complaining about. Now, I built my own studio in my home and work with clients I had doing the radio/tv production stuff. The studio I got that experience from charged $200-$375/hr for that type of work. I can charge half of that and make some comfortable cash on the side in my home studio working with the producers from agencies that have clients that can't afford the $200/hr rates. I also still have a few of my music clients that I work with on a regular basis recording,mixing, and mastering. The difference is that I don't have to work with every Joe off the street, I have a luxary of choosing my clients and working when I want too. My engineering job provides me with my regular income, which I make more money than being self employed along with benefits and paid vacations. If that makes me a non engineer who installs car stereos, well I'm happy to say I'm the most experienced, highest paid, non engineer installing radios and recording enthusiast who gets paid for his work. I'll take that any day than someone being a fader pusher and works for someone else not making enough money to afford your own studio equipment with nothing higher than a high school education as a back up plan.

PipelineAudio wrote on 12/28/2003, 10:08 AM
Rednroll you cant deny that you were counted among those who opposed auto input time and again.
Rednroll wrote on 12/28/2003, 10:31 AM
I never denied there was a need for it. At that time, you said you couldn't get ANY work done without it. I offered you advice on how to get the work done without it, with step-by-step instructions using another method. You were not open minded enough to use it, and decided to pout. Being a cry baby in a forum when other users offer you advice doesn't go far. this is a USER forum after all, where the direct intention is for other users to help one another. I never bashed you for suggesting it, because I have used it in the past. If that's what you read into it, I think that's your own fault because you where set in your own ways and Vegas didn't work the way you wanted to work. Like I said, if Vegas doesn't do what you want, then use the tool that does, don't cry for years that you're not getting any work done. This just seems logical to me.

Another point is that I prefer to see features implemented that aren't currently possible with other work arounds. If I had a choice of Vegas having hardware control of faders or auto-input, I would have to chose the hardware control, because I have no work around. I've also expressed the problem with pre-fader sends not being muted when you mute a track and sent in hardware mixer diagrams to show how it is done in the hardware world and how Vegas's implementation I considered wrong. I would also like to see this fixed before auto-input. Hopefully everything get's implemented and everyone's happy. I just like to see things that aren't possible before things that are.
tmrpro wrote on 12/28/2003, 12:25 PM
*****??? Why is a thread filled with legit requests, from many diverse users, working on real projects, a complete waste of time? *****

It's a waste of time because we started talking about V5 in May and it's December and you still haven't implemented anything. The list keeps growing and growing with nothing but features while the fundamental aspects of the program are not working as a mulit-track application should and peoples' reputations (including mine and yours) are in front of, and behind the, design of these products.

I'm not discounting all of the diverse users and all of their diverse projects, I am discounting the overwhelming number of requests that are being logged and considered and probably worked on by the development staff at Sony Media, which can only be interfearing with a release that addresses the fact that Vegas does not monitor or punch-in like a mulittrack application should.

When someone records with a multi-track recorder and that is the only tool that they use to record with, it should be expected to work like a multi-track recorder; not a car stereo.

If the features that have been implemented in your car stereo are added after the fundamental aspects of the multi-track recorder have been addressed, then voila; it is magic and beautiful.

If you implement a wireless remote for all of the car stereo boys in V5 and you don't address the pro level fundamental aspects of monitoring and punching in, then you will have car stereo boys playing with your remote.

Then my question for you becomes:

Do you want to sell V5 to car stereo boys or do you want the application to become the standard of the industry?
tmrpro wrote on 12/28/2003, 12:36 PM

I thought RednRoll worked at AKG? Car stereos, huh?

Man, I'm impressed!

I saw his name on the roster in Canton, MI as a high school teacher.... LMFAO@RednRoll.Com

What is it Red?

All this high dollar audio development for who? What company? YouImagination@LotsaBS.Com
Rednroll wrote on 12/28/2003, 6:14 PM
I should just laugh at this point, the ignorance never seems to stop.

"All this high dollar audio development for who? What company?"
Harman International.....Ever hear of it Todd?

Maybe you're too busy to know who that is, I could imagine with a hectic schedule working with all those big record labels and all. Like this job you mention in your forums.

tmrpro said:
"Vitamin Records wants me to do a 5.1 Surround Sound mix and Master of one of my String Tribute CDs for international release as a Surround Sound DVD Audio Disk."

Wow!!! I'm impressed Todd. Vitamin Records!! What happened with all those other big named record companies you listed before? Keep up the good work doing those String section recordings of other artists music. It takes a lot of talent and creativity to play someone ELSES music. You're right Todd, Sony should really pay more attention to someone like you with your expertise in the recording field. There's just not a lot of people doing those string section recordings out there. I can see how that would be really difficult to do and how intriguing that sounds......<yawn> String sections, boy them CD sales must be burning off the shelves.

From Tmrpro's forum....he's looking for suggestions for artist suggestions for his next String Section composition. Please post your suggestions here for him, he takes requests.

Tmrpro said:
"Cyndi Lauper would be amazing!"

Oh yes Todd, you are so right on with this one. Not only can we not get enough Cyndi Lauper, but to hear it on strings, oh I just can't wait!!!!!
MJhig wrote on 12/28/2003, 8:50 PM
I'm not saying those that want the old school punch-in feature supported shouldn't get it, but as an old school musician who now records, I much prefer the "donut technique". It may be a function of salesmanship.

I find it beneficial to cut out, say a chorus, set up a loop region 2 measures prior and 1 measure after, cut the chorus on the previous track, arm the next track, click the loop button and let the musician do take after take after take to their or my heart's content. Then choose the best take.

I simply sell that "new" fact and all but the most "old dog who thinks he's all that" loves it.

As far as catching jams of improvisations I simply arm a separate track and record the whole thing. If it's worth it I cut out a chunk and use it, if not trash it. With HDDs so cheap now and DVD-RAMs etc, space is no problem.

Sure, I'll probably get flamed now, go ahead if you must, that's not my intention. I'm just trying to suggest a different approach.

tmrpro wrote on 12/29/2003, 7:02 AM
******click the loop button and let the musician do take after take after take******

The key words here are "the musician".....

This method is is exactly the same way I work with a single performer. We refer to this method as comp'ing. The method of compiling a track from a group of performances.

I totally agree with you that is is an excellent method of creating a successful performance and probably the best way to do so when dealing with a single performer that has a single punch-in location.

It is the WORST way to try to successfully complete a tracking session that is made up of several performers (5 or more) that may have 2 spots each to punch in after a group performance for a total of 10 quick fixes.

Then when you combine that type of scenario with the need of listening to the performance and your tracks input at the same time because your not monitoring with auto input....

Everytime one of you guys tries to justify this method of punching you are referring to overdubbing a single performer. Does anyone here actually record groups of people? ....Say; bands or symphonies or orchestras?

The method of splitting a track (or even a group of tracks) is fine if you have a single performer to deal with, but it is not acceptable when you have more than one.
Rednroll wrote on 12/29/2003, 2:42 PM
"Does anyone here actually record groups of people? ....Say; bands or symphonies or orchestras?"

Nope, none of us here ever recorded any bands or anything like that. You're the only one, that's able to do this type of thing. We are all LMAOnobandrecording@tmrpro.com. We would really like to learn from someone like you with all that experience. Please tell us more of how you use auto-input and had to punch-in on a "symphony or orchestra". Yeah, I could really see how you need auto-input monitoring when you're doing those punch-ins for that orchestra. I would really like to see the headphone amp for those 100 headphone cue system also. Please, tell us some more how we don't know how to work without auto-input, your replies really show us how lame you really are.

tmrpro wrote on 12/29/2003, 3:06 PM
Just as I thought, Here comes Red with his little abusive answer that doesn't address anything but his ignorance and childish behavior.

What's your point? Are you asking me of my experience recording Symphonies & Orchestras, if so .....you happen to be talking to the right guy! That's what I do, all the time. In fact, I just got done doing a 14 piece group TODAY for The String Tribute To Nickelback which is due for a February release on Vitamin Records.....

...When you (like the idiot that you are) say "we": ...are you referring to you and mjhig? Because he was specifically talking about ONE performer, as you have and everyone else, who has given this forum an answer as to why splitting for punch points and multi-lateral monitoring, has.

Dr. RednRoll (who got his doctrine out of a Cracker Jacks box) when do you cut tracks without comp'ing?

Probably when your teaching High School for a living and playing on the internet, trying to make people believe you are something you are not.

What have you ever recorded in your life that I or anyone else can verify that you've done. Go ahead and put your foot in your mouth again, it is completely hilarious.

RednBoy, grow up and start acting your age, not your shoe size & do everyone a favor and stop trying to BS people in this forum about professional recording methods of which you have no knowledge of or experience at.
adowrx wrote on 12/31/2003, 12:27 PM
"Then when you combine that type of scenario with the need of listening to the performance and your tracks input at the same time because your not monitoring with auto input....

Everytime one of you guys tries to justify this method of punching you are referring to overdubbing a single performer. Does anyone here actually record groups of people? ....Say; bands or symphonies or orchestras?

The method of splitting a track (or even a group of tracks) is fine if you have a single performer to deal with, but it is not acceptable when you have more than one."

I overdub groups on a regular basis using the split/group method without any issue, but I monitor through a mixer. I also think we may be arguing symantics here, as if you split the track and highlight the section you want to "punch" you hear the pre roll take and then the live performance at the split point. This is essentially the same as a punch on the fly. Obviously, if the split section is shorter than the duration of the take, you will hear the previous take when the split point at the end of your selected section is reached. If you are worried about missing some of the performance, or screwing the musicians up with the previous take popping back into his cans, highlight to the end of the piece and clean up your tracks later. Seems as though we need to just adjust to alternative ways of working.